Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESEARCH
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readingsin the Geometric and Genotypical Compositions
Shatha Malhis1
Published online: 14 July 2016
� Kim Williams Books, Turin 2016
Abstract This paper looks at the spatial development of Mamluks’ educational
buildings (madrassas) throughout the Bahri and Burji periods (1260–1517 A.D.).
The lines of inquiry aim at investigating diachronically the degree by which
madrassas can demonstrate the idea of a single configurationally dominant geno-
type. Madrassas are scrutinized according to their geometric and spatial attributes;
their spatial structure is described according to their patterns of permeability, and
interpreted using geometric-syntactic and statistical analysis. Despite the variability
of the madrassas’ footprints, this research highlights the conventions essential in
stabilizing the madrassa as a building type and identifies the regional ‘court’ and the
local ‘Jerusalem’ genotypes. While the results for the first identify an integrated
central zone with segregated outer environments, those of the second identify a
centrifugal-extroverted plan that tries to expand its circle of presence, and maximize
its opportunities of encounter.
Keywords Mamluk Madrassa � Court genotype � Jerusalem genotype �Educational building � Iwan � Madrassas � Space syntax
Introduction
Mamluk sultans were great art and architecture patrons. They ordered the
construction of an enormous number of buildings that fulfilled the people’s social
and religious needs and that expressed the power and prestige of the Mamluk
sultans’ reigns (Grabar 1984). As an institution, the madrassa evolved in the
eleventh century as a synthesis of both the mosque, which has always been the
& Shatha Malhis
[email protected]; [email protected]
1 Faculty of Architecture and Design, Petra University, PO Box 961343, Amman 11196, Jordan
Nexus Netw J (2017) 19:45–72
DOI 10.1007/s00004-016-0309-5
centre of Islamic education, and the khan, which provided a resting place for
travelling traders. The fundamental Islamic sciences comprised the curriculum, and
the study of law usually covered all four schools of Sunni Islam (Mahamid 2011).
The madrassa is a congregational space, a study area, a locus for communal readings
of the Quran, social meetings, learning, and listening. The patron’s mausoleum is
usually associated with the madrassa (Malhis 2016). Responding to the size and
location of the madrassa, the designers might provide rooms for the students and
novices, and a residence for ‘shiq’.
The madrassa has a four-iwan plan in which one iwan (a rectangular hall which is
typically walled on three sides and opens at one end) is situated on each of the four
sides of a rectilinear courtyard, with one iwan always functioning as a mosque
(Fig. 1). The court acts as a provisional spatial extension for the iwans and creates a
distinguished spatial and visual expression. The madrassa is functionally con-
structed to serve its short-term visitors, long-term students, and caretakers (Newhall
1987). The wide variety of buildings that this civilization produced represented a
varied repertoire of styles reflective of Mamluk architectural development.
Published work on Mamluk madrassas (plural) has moved in several directions.
The first surveys madrassa types and discusses madrassas in the context of the
evolution of the geometric and stylistic shapes of the open court and its four iwans
(Parker 1985). The second explores how Mamluk architecture represented itself by
discussing monuments in the greater Islamic world. At the morphological level,
studies either used a narrative approach to describe how Mamluks located their
buildings or presented morphological investigations that addressed the geometry of
form without casting a wider net to interpret the layouts in which wider cultural
expression has been preserved (Eilouti and Al-Jokhadar 2007; Rabbat 2010). In
their drive for either precision, historical and comprehensive narrative or stylistic
and geometric definition, these studies overlooked certain subtleties of the
architecture of the four-iwan madrassas and the details of their configuration.
Fig. 1 Sketches and images Mamluk madrassas
46 S. Malhis
This paper aims at investigating madrassas throughout the Bahri, 1260–1382
A.D., and the Burji, 1382–1517 A.D. To achieve this goal, the following two
questions are examined: (1) How have the four-iwan madrassas shaped their
functions over time and are there any compositional rules that govern those
formations? (2) What is the impact of programmatic and location challenges on the
nature of the developed spatial patterns, and what is the degree by which madrassas
can demonstrate the idea of a single configurational genotype? The sample includes
every madrassa that marked the beginning and end of the Bahri and Burji periods,
along with examples of protagonist sultans and long reigns (Table 1). When the
sample was examined, a gap in the chronological order was noted; therefore,
documented madrassas from the Levant (M3, M4, and M5) and Cairo (M12) were
added to reflect the actual spread of the Sultanate’s monuments and homogenize the
chronological gap. The cases selected are represented by twelve madrassas in Cairo,
Jerusalem, and Aleppo. Through their innovative or repetitive repertoire, they
demonstrate the influence of location, the reign’s limited or generous funding, and
the chronological era (Fig. 2; Table 2). The sources of the plans were the collected
sets of measured architectural drawings published in several recent studies
(Organization 1992; Abouseif 1992). Based on these drawings, a new plan for
each madrassa was prepared and marked with a standard set of abbreviations. While
the layouts of some madrassas were altered since being built, the version of the
madrassa analysed here is the original.
Taking these grounds as points of departure, this paper engaged two sequential
methods of analysis crossed by historical and contextual debates: formal-geometric
on one hand and morphological-syntactic related to space-syntax theory on the
other. This paper consists of an introduction, three main parts, and a conclusion. In
the first part, layouts are analysed by distinguishing their geometric characteristics
and a brief proposal is given to clarify how the geometric rules are employed on the
Table 1 Madrassas’ sample
No. Madrassa Abbreviation Year A.D. location Built up Area M2
Bahri Period (1260–1382 A.D.)
1. Sultan Qalawan M1 1284–1285 Cairo 1375
2. Um Sultan Shaban M2 1369 Cairo 1250
3. Tashtamar M3 1377 Jerusalem 350
4. Saffaheya M4 1377 Aleppo 1175
5. Baldya M5 1380 Jerusalem 895
6. Sultan Hasan M6 1356–1362 Cairo 9600
Burji Period (1382–1517 A.D.)
7. Zahir Barquq M7 1384–1386 Cairo 2600
8. Ashraf Barsbay M8 1425 Cairo 1550
9. Sultan Inal M9 1451–1456 Cairo 960
10. Sultan QaitBay M10 1472–1474 Cairo 756
11. Sultan Guri M11 1504–1505 Cairo 2390
12. Amir Karkamas M12 1506–1507 Cairo 2170
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 47
Fig. 2 Madrassas layout. Reproduced by the author, from (Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities,1990)
48 S. Malhis
Table
2M
adra
ssas
’fl
oor
lay
ou
tsla
bel
s’le
gen
d
Ab
bre
via
tio
ns
CR
T:
Court
IQ:
Qib
la-i
wan
INW
:N
ort
h-w
este
rn-i
wan
ISW
:S
outh
-wes
tern
-iw
anIN
E:N
ort
h-e
aste
rn-i
wan
M:
Mau
sole
um
MIQ
:Q
ibla
-iw
anm
ihra
bE
:E
ntr
ance
VS
:V
esti
bule
S1-3
3:
Stu
den
tro
om
MM
:M
auso
leu
m
mih
rab
LC
:L
ong
corr
idor
ST
OP
1:S
tair
way
toK
utt
abS
top2-4
:S
tair
way
toM
ezza
nin
eD
1:
Dea
d-e
nd
spac
efo
rkee
pin
g
ho
lyb
oo
ks
R1
-R3
:No
vic
es’
roo
mA
:A
blu
tio
nB
:S
abil
Q1
-6:
Sh
iqro
om
IR1
-2:I
mam
roo
m
QD
L:
Sh
iq
dis
trib
uti
ng
loun
ge
SN
WR
:S
adla
atth
eri
gh
to
fn
ort
h-
wes
tern
-iw
an
SN
WL
:S
adla
atth
ele
fto
fn
ort
h-
wes
tern
-iw
an
SIQ
L:
Sad
laat
the
left
of
qib
la-
iwan
PD
L:
Pri
vat
ed
istr
ibu
tin
glo
un
ge
E2
:S
EC
ON
D
EN
TR
AN
CE
VS
2:
Sec
ond
ves
tib
ule
M2
:S
eco
nd
Mau
sole
um
RN
E:
Roo
mat
tach
edto
no
rth
-
east
ern
-iw
an
RC
:ro
om
atta
ched
toth
eco
urt
C1
-C4
:S
ub
-co
urt
sA
1-1
4:
Ab
luti
on
spac
es
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 49
buildings’ layouts. In the second, the configurational properties of the madrassas are
examined by considering their morphological and functional patterns, and a
quantitative picture of their spatial organizations is presented. In the third, a
functional and a statistical account is attempted for the sample overall, and a
genotypical account about the twelve-Madrassas sample is identified. The
conclusion provides new readings of Mamluk designs that are grounded in design
choices.
Given the complexity of Mamluk architecture and its significant architectural and
stylistic innovations, this study is limited to providing new readings into the spatial
morphology of Mamluk madrassas without relating their configurational relation-
ships to the stylistic compositions of the madrassas’ forms. Although the element of
indoor-outdoor transition of Mamluk buildings demonstrated special urban attention
in Mamluk inner-city innovations, and together they imposed an urban dialogue
across the street, the sample included here is limited to considering the interior
spaces of the Madrassa without including the complex urban outdoor spaces
surrounding it.
Madrassas Layouts
An initial examination of the madrassas layouts reflected varieties in how the spatial
and geometrical architectonics of boundaries dissolved in favour of the continuity of
each example. It showed that there is a high degree of variability in terms of the
characteristics of the madrassas’ basic building footprints. By following the
street alignment and modifying the depth of the walls, designers were able to
position their buildings along variously oriented portals. The literature showed that
patrons of spaces produced their work by confronting four location challenges:
confining the building’s outline to the allocated land, aligning the sanctuary and its
mihrab towards Mecca (Qibla), situating the building’s entrance at street level, and
locating the tomb chamber of the patron on the street side of the edifice. One can
argue that the detected irregularities reflect the architectural and urban aspects of
Mamluk history.
By examining what is happening geometrically inside the madrassas, one would
suggest that there are clear and simple rules (Fig. 3). First, all iwans have a parallel
and directional relationship to the court. Although the geometric cross-shape rule
applies, the proportions and metric distances of the iwans are mutable. Second, the
mausoleum and the cross-shape are geometrically in parallel alignment to one
another. Third, in nine cases (with the exceptions of M1, M3, and M11) the
rectilinear mausoleum is adjacent to qibla-iwan. Although the clear geometric order
indicates some logical methodology at work, it is impossible to precisely describe
how the cross-shape links to the rest of the composition. As the interpretation of the
mausoleum located at the left side of the qibla-iwan suggests—as M7 shows—a
direct/single connection, the interpretation of M5, although displaying a similar
alignment, reveals different connections. The relationship between the entrance and
the centre demonstrates another perplexing case and there are also variations in how
50 S. Malhis
madrassas functions are augmented. It is clear that the framework of the iwans/court
rules strongly deviate outside of the iwans’ borders.
If one examines these variations more closely, some experiential rules emerge.
There is a trend to create a similar sensation with respect to how the court is
experienced: the best criterion seems to appear when the entrance and the qibla-
iwan are in opposite directions (M2 and M6). In this instance, the visitor approaches
the courtyard through a series of transitional corridors, which locates the visitor at a
point that facilitate both visualizing the beauty of the court and confronting the
qibla-iwan. In the cases in which the entrance and the qibla-iwan are not in opposite
directions (M8), the approach is altered by creating transitional corridors and
reversing the journey’s orientation. When this criterion was difficult to achieve, the
visitor passed through actual functional spaces where the experience is diluted (M5).
Fig. 3 Geometric rules
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 51
A Quantitative Picture
Although the initial visual inspection of madrassas compositions elucidates some
obscured rules, it falls short of providing insight into the range of possibilities for
arranging the programmatic spaces within the madrassa. It is time to ask whether the
Mamluk efforts to adhere to a site and street pattern affected the spatial and
functional structure of these madrassas and whether these levels of irregularity have
remained permissible and reflective of a single functional type. The knowledge of
such working structure, according to space-syntax comprehension, is embedded
within the building itself (Hillier et al. 1987).
Space-syntax is a set of techniques that represents and quantifies spatial patterns.
It is realized by focusing on spatial adjacencies and permeabilities. In its conception
architecture is seen as a social interface through space that elaborates on two sets of
social relationships: between the groups within the building, and between those
groups and the visitors or the public from outside. To obtain a visual representation
of these relationships, a two-dimensional convex structure is first created by
depicting the least number of convex spaces that fully cover a particular plan. An
abstracted justified graph then demonstrates how the organization of convex spaces
(nodes) and connections (lines and rings) regulate both access and choice. Depth
reveals the number of steps one should take to reach a particular space and is used in
calculating the measure of integration that indicates the relative depth of a certain
space. Looking at the building with and without the exterior helps in understanding
how the building unfolds as a justified graph and allows investigation of the interior-
exterior relations and their impact on the overall space configuration and its
resultant social interface. Depthmap software facilitates the representation of the
buildings as convex maps that can be processed to demonstrate the integration
values of each functional space (Pinelo and Turner 2010; Varoudis 2014). Whereas
the most integrated spaces are assigned the highest values, the most segregated
spaces are assigned the lowest values. If the numerical differences in the functions
are in consistent order across the sample, then this ‘type of consistency in spatial
patterning [is termed] an inequality genotype’ (Hillier et al. 1987: 364). Although
this dominant genotype is sometimes strongly attained by having all of its spatial-
functional themes present across the sample, in many instances it is more weakly
realized by having some of its themes present and some missing, showing itself
under various ‘phenotypical’ arrangements. To evaluate the strength of these
inequalities, space-syntax developed the measure of difference factor (BDF). It
quantifies the degree of difference among the integration values of any three spaces.
Despite the abilities of space-syntax in quantitatively expressing a building’s spatial
qualities, it abstracts their three-dimensional perceptual capabilities. In spite of this
limitation, it remains powerful in fulfilling the gap in the spatial comprehension of
Mamluk madrassas.
One major discretionary element in space-syntax is the actual delineation of the
spatial system considered, as the decisions chosen have direct impact on the
syntactical results (Malhis 2016). In this research, the following decisions were
made. First, outer courts were not considered as part of the spatial system. Second,
52 S. Malhis
the main floor is only considered because it housed all of the essential functions and
because it is usually available in the literature. Third, each iwan is considered as a
single space regardless of its size, because the detection of its size does not affect
the dynamics of its use, which involves groups of learners spreading throughout its
boundaries. In contrast, bent corridors that followed the angled entrance to the
madrassa have been treated as equivalent to several spaces. Fourth, the decorative
niches were not reflected as functional spaces; conversely, deep, functional niches
were considered. Fifth, the stairway at the entry to the madrassa is identified
throughout the analysis because it leads to the Kuttab space (for teaching children),
which is usually squeezed in the mezzanine. Sixth, although the extra-awkward
rooms that extended ‘into the masonry behind the apex of the muqarnas hood’ were
not considered, the ‘steps… accommodated within bent passage[s] cut through the
thickness of [the] wall[s]’ were identified to indicate these rooms (Burgoyne 1987:
472).
The following paragraphs aim at underlining the spatial characteristics present
within the madrassa and across the sample. The topological structure of each
madrassa’s spatial configuration is represented by a justified permeability graph
(Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7) and by considering its spatial pattern in terms of the rank order of
Fig. 4 Bahri madrassas justified graphs (M1–M5). To distinguish between the transitional corridors,usually bent spaces, and the other functional spaces, such corridors were left unhatched
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 53
Table
3O
rder
of
Inte
gra
tio
nv
alues
of
the
sam
ple
’sfu
nct
ion
sw
ith
ou
tex
teri
or
Bahri
Period(1260–1382A.D.)
M1:
Sult
anQ
alaw
an-2
5fu
nct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.5
4)
[L
C(1
.11)
=IN
W(1
.11)
[IS
W(1
.06)
=IN
E(1
.06)
=S
4(1
.06)
=S
3(1
.06)
[IQ
(0.9
1)
[A
(0.8
6)
[,
VS
(0.8
5)
[D
1(0
.84)
[S
8(0
.82)
=S
7(0
.82)
=S
6(0
.82)
=S
5(0
.82)
=S
1(0
.82)
=S
2(0
.82)
[A
1-1
4
(0.6
9)
[,
E(0
.68)
[M
IQ (0.6
0)
=IR
(0.6
0)
[M
DL (0.5
8)
[S
ToP
1
(0.4
5)
=M
(0.4
5)
[M
M(0
.36)
M2:
Um
Sult
anS
hab
an-2
9fu
nct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.0
5)
[IQ
(0.8
9)
[IN
E(0
.81)
=IS
W(0
.81)
=IN
W(0
.81)
=M
DL (0.8
1)
[L
C(0
.77)
[M
(0.6
9)
[R
1(0
.63)
=,
R2
(0.6
3)
=R
DL (0
.63)
=S
1(0
.63)
=S
2(0
.63)
[S
3(0
.60)
=M
IQ(0
.60)
=M
2(0
.60)
[V
S(0
.57)
[B
(0.5
4)
=,
A(0
.54)
[Q
DL (0
.53)
[M
M(0
.50)
[R
3(0
.49)
=D
1(0
.49)
[Q
2(0
.46)
=Q
5(0
.46)
=Q
1(0
.46)
[Q
3(0
.41)
[,
E(0
.39)
[Q
4(0
.37)
M3:
Tas
hta
mar
-19
funct
ion
spac
e:
INW
(0.8
6)
[C
RT (0
.85)
[V
S1/L
C
(0.8
1)
[IS
W(0
.71)
[IN
E(0
.70)
[IQ
(0.6
9)
[E
1(0
.64)
[M
IQ(0
.55)
[D
1(0
.54)
=,
D2
(0.5
4)
[M
(0.5
3)
[S
ToP
1(0
.51)
[R
DL (0
.49)
[S
IQL
(0.4
6)
[V
S2
(0.4
4)
[E
2(0
.38)
=S
ToP
3
(0.3
8)
[S
ToP
2
(0.3
6)
[,
MM
(0.3
4)
M4:
Saf
fahey
a-22
funct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.4
9)
[IN
E(1
.19)
[IQ
(1.1
0)
[IS
W(0
.95)
=IN
W(0
.95)
[S
IQR (0.8
3)
[S
IQL (0.8
1)
[A
(0.7
7)
[Q
DL
(0.6
8)
[,
S1
(0.6
6)
=S
2(0
.66)
=S
3(0
.66)
[M
(0.6
5)
[E
(0.6
2)
=D
1(0
.62)
[M
IQ(0
.61)
[A
1(0
.60)
=A
2(0
.60)
[,
R1
(0.5
8)
[Q
1(0
.54)
=Q
2(0
.54)
[M
M(0
.44)
54 S. Malhis
Table
3co
nti
nu
ed
M5:
Bal
dya-
20
funct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.2
4)
=IN
E(1
.24)
[IO
(0.9
3)
[S
1(0
.88)
[M
(0.8
2)
[L
C(0
.74)
[M
IQ(0
.71)
[IN
W(0
.70)
[IS
W(0
.69)
=,
RC
(0.6
9)
=S
ToP
3
(0.6
9)
=R
NE
(0.6
9)
=R
2(0
.69)
[E
2(0
.68)
[V
S2 (0
.62)
[S
ToP
2
(0.5
7)
[V
S1
(0.5
5)
=E
1(0
.55)
[,
R1
(0.3
9)
[S
ToP
1
(0.3
6)
M6:
Sult
anH
asan
-66
funct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.0
1)
[IN
W(0
.88)
[L
C(0
.87)
[IQ
(0.8
6)
[IS
W(0
.84)
=IN
E(0
.84)
[D
3(0
.74)
=D
5(0
.74)
[M
IQ(0
.73)
[,
R3
(0.6
4)
=V
S(0
.64)
=D
4(0
.64)
=M
(0.6
4)
[C
1(0
.63)
=IR
1(0
.63)
=IR
2(0
.63)
=IR
1(0
.63)
=IR
2(0
.63)
[,
R1
(0.5
7)
=R
2(0
.57)
=D
1(0
.57)
=D
2(0
.57)
[S
ToP
1
(0.5
5)
[M
M (0.5
1)
[S
2(0
.50)
=S
3(0
.50)
=S
4(0
.50)
=,
S5
(0.5
0)
=S
6(0
.50)
=S
1(0
.50)
[A
2(0
.49)
=A
3(0
.49)
[E
(0.4
7)
=A
1(0
.47)
=S
28
(0.4
7)
=A
4(0
.47)
=,
S27
(0.4
7)
=S
ToP
2
(0.4
7)
[C
2(0
.46)
=C
3(0
.46)
[S
9(0
.45)
=S
19
(0.4
5)
=S
8(0
.45)
=S
11
(0.4
5)
=S
21
(0.4
5)
=,
S10
(0.4
5)
=S
18
(0.4
5)
=S
20
(0.4
5)
=S
7(0
.45)
=S
17
(0.4
5)
=S
33
(0.4
5)
[S
32
(0.4
4)
[S
ToP
3
(0.4
2)
=S
ToP
4
(0.4
2)
[,
S31
(0.4
1)
=S
30
(0.4
1)
=S
29
(0.4
1)
[S
15
(0.3
9)
=S
13
(0.3
9)
=S
12
(0.3
9)
=S
25
(0.3
9)
=S
23
(0.3
9)
=S
22
(0.3
9)
[,
S24
(0.3
6)
=S
14
(0.3
6)
=S
16
(0.3
6)
BurjiPeriod(1382–1517A.D.)
M7:
Zah
irB
arquq-3
5fu
nct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.1
6)
[IN
E(0
.89)
=IN
W(0
.89)
=IS
W(0
.89)
[IQ
(0.7
9)
[L
C(0
.62)
[M
(0.5
8)
=Q
DL
2
(0.5
8)
[S
50.5
7)
[,
MIQ (0.5
6)
[S
ToP
2
(0.5
5)
=S
9(0
.55)
[R
1(0
.53)
[S
ToP
1
(0.5
2)
[Q
4(0
.50)
=Q
3(0
.50)
[S
8(0
.48)
=S
7(0
.48)
=,
VS
(0.4
8)
[B
(0.4
7)
[S
DL
1
(0.4
5)
=S
DL
2
(0.4
5)
=Q
DL
1
(0.4
5)
[M
M (0.4
4)
=A
(0.4
4)
=IR
1(0
.44)
[D
1(0
.42)
[,
Q1
(0.4
1)
[S
1-S
4(0
.40)
=S
6(0
.40)
[E
(0.3
8)
[Q
2(0
.37)
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 55
Table
3co
nti
nu
ed
M8:
Ash
raf
Bar
sbay
-30
funct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T(1
.12)
[L
C(0
.88)
[IN
E(0
.85)
=IS
W(0
.85)
[IN
W(0
.76)
[S
ToP
1
(0.7
1)
[R
1(0
.70)
[IQ
(0.6
9)
[V
S(0
.63)
=,
S4
(0.6
3)
=S
5(0
.63)
=S
3(0
.63)
[S
ToP
2
(0.6
2)
[S
6(0
.58)
[M
(0.5
4)
=S
ToP
3
(0.5
4)
[S
1(0
.53)
=S
2(0
.53)
=,
D1
(0.5
3)
[A
(0.5
2)
[S
8(0
.51)
=S
7(0
.51)
[M
IQ(0
.50)
[M
DL
(0.4
8)
=Q
DL
(0.4
8)
[B
(0.4
6)
=E
(0.4
6)
[,
A1-8
(0.4
5)
[Q
1(0
.43)
[Q
2(0
.38)
M9:
Sult
anIn
al-2
1fu
nct
ions
spac
e:
CR
T(1
.31)
[L
C(0
.95)
[IQ
(0.9
1)
[IN
E(0
.89)
=IS
W(0
.89)
=S
1(0
.89)
=S
2(0
.89)
[V
S(0
.75)
[IN
W (0.7
3)
[,
B(0
.71)
=R
1(0
.71)
[IR
1(0
.69)
[IR
2(0
.59)
[S
NW
R
(0.5
7)
=S
NW
L
(0.5
7)
[S
ToP
2
(0.5
6)
[M
IQ(0
.55)
[M
(0.5
1)
[,
ST
oP
1
(0.4
8)
[E
(0.4
2)
[M
M(0
.38)
M10:
Sult
anQ
aitB
ay-2
6fu
nct
ions
spac
e:
CR
T(1
.46)
[L
C(1
.10)
=IN
E(1
.10)
[IQ
(1.0
8)
[IS
W(0
.99)
=S
1(0
.99)
[IN
W(0
.89)
[V
S(0
.85)
[R
1(0
.81)
[,
MIQ
(0.8
0)
[S
ToP
1
(0.7
6)
[S
2(0
.72)
[S
NW
R(0
.70)
=S
NW
L
(0.7
0)
=M
(0.7
0)
[S
ToP
2
(0.6
7)
[IR
(0.6
4)
[R
2(0
.58)
=,
Q1
(0.5
8)
[M
M(0
.57)
=S
3(0
.57)
=S
4(0
.57)
=S
5(0
.57)
=S
6(0
.57)
[B
(0.5
5)
=E
(0.5
5)
M11:
Sult
anG
uri
-31
funct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T(1
.32)
[L
C(1
.09)
[IN
W (1.0
2)
[IS
W(0
.97)
[IN
E(0
.93)
=S
10
(0.9
3)
[M
(0.8
5)
[IQ
(0.8
1)
[S
6(0
.79)
[,
SN
W(0
.77)
[S
ToP
1
(0.7
1)
[V
S(0
.67)
[S
2(0
.65)
=S
3(0
.65)
=S
4(0
.65)
=S
5(0
.65)
=S
IQR (0.6
5)
[S
IQL (0.6
4)
=,
S7
(0.6
4)
[S
9(0
.61)
=S
8(0
.61)
[M
M(0
.56)
[D
1(0
.55)
=S
ToP
2
(0.5
5)
[M
IQ(0
.54)
=S
1(0
.54)
=IR
(0.5
4)
=,
D2
(0.5
4)
[E
(0.4
7)
[R
1(0
.42)
=R
2(0
.42)
56 S. Malhis
Table
3co
nti
nu
ed
M12:
Am
irK
arkam
as-2
3fu
nct
ion
spac
e:
CR
T
(1.4
7)
[L
C
(1.2
1)
[IN
E(1
.01)
[IS
W (0.9
7)
=S
2
(0.9
7)
=M
DL
(0.9
7)
[S
ToP
1
(0.8
5)
=D
2 (0.8
5)
[V
S(0
.79)
[,
INW
(0.7
8)
[IQ
(0.7
6)
[S
ToP
2
(0.7
3)
[M
(0.6
3)
=A
(0.6
3)
[S
NW
R
(0.6
1)
=S
NW
L
(0.6
1)
[S
1
(0.6
0)
=M
IQ (0.6
0)
[,
B(0
.52)
=D
1 (0.5
2)
=M
M(0
.52)
=E
(0.5
2)
[Q
1 (0.4
4)
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 57
the integration values of its various functions and of how its functions fit into the
spatial pattern as a whole (Tables 3, 4).
Bahri Madrassas
M1 plan has a long corridor that regulates the arrangement of the memorial and
educational functions at the sides of the entrance. Its justified graph shows that the
court links to several trivial circulation rings (a trivial ring is one which connects the
same pair of spaces twice), and leads to the iwans, ablution space, and study rooms.
In contrast to the court and corridor, most of madrassa’s spaces are endpoints. The
court is the most integrated space at 1.54 followed by the corridor. The
Mausoleum’s mihrab is the most segregated at 0.36 and the exterior is largely
segregated. All of the educational iwans are on the integrated side of the mean
integration and the rest of the functions, including the entrance, are on the
segregated side (Table 3).
To comprehend how the various functions are spatialized, it is useful to examine
the degree of differentiation among the integration values of the different functions.
Table 4 tabulates these relationships along three sets. The first examines the
differentiations across the major educational and memorial functions and their
relationships to madrassas’ inner parts and outer edges. The second examines the
individualized functions of novices, students and shiqs and how they relate to the
court, the entrance and each other. The third examines particular detected
adjacencies noted in the earlier geometric investigation. A review of M1’s results
shows that whereas the M, E and CRT, are strongly differentiated at the difference
factor values (BDF) of 0.391 and 0.446 without and with the exterior (mean
integration is 0.888 and 0.887), the three main educational iwans are weakly
differentiated, with a BDF value of 0.996 with and without the exterior and a mean
integration value of 1.080. M1 is a madrassa in which the court is the most
integrated space: it is deep from the exterior, it lies on trivial rings, and it structures
and links a homogenized and separated set of functions. The syntactical-
configurational role of the corridor in distinguishing the ‘rectangular mass’ of the
mausoleum and separating it from the rest of the madrassa’s complex is seen in
literature as a symbolically indicative gesture (Alsayyad 2011). It is interesting to
see the extent to which these results are produced in the other madrassas.
M2’s court lies on four non-trivial circulation rings; its qibla-iwan lies on three
and branches into two separate rings. In contrast to the highly segregated
mausoleum of M1, M2’s mausoleum is on the integrated side and is much more
homogenized. Whereas (CRT, IO, M) are weakly differentiated in M2 at 0.944, they
are well structured in M1 at 0.707. Although the differentiation among (M, E, and
CRT) is strong in M2 at 0.627, it is less pronounced in M1 at 0.391. Despite these
differences, its iwans are, like M1, weakly differentiated, the entrance and exterior
are on the segregated side, and the court remains the most integrated space. It plays
a role in structuring the relationship among the madrassa’s individualized functions
and holds them apart at different branching.
M3 from Jerusalem is the smallest in the sample with double entrances. It has one
external ring that connects its entrances, vestibules, two iwans and the court. M3
58 S. Malhis
Table
4D
iffe
ren
ceF
acto
rB
DF
for
mai
nsp
aces
Mad
rasa
sM
ajor
funct
ions
Indiv
idual
ized
funct
ions
Det
ecte
dad
jace
nci
es
Sw
ing
sS
win
gs
Sw
ing
sS
win
gs
M,
E,
CR
T
ISW
,IN
W,
ISE
CR
T,
IQ,
M
Ex
teri
or,
E,
Co
urt
IQ,
E,
CR
T
S,
E,
CR
T
Q,
E,
CR
T
Q,
R,
S
LC
,M
,
CR
T
INW
,M
,
CR
T
E,
INW
,
M
M1
NC
0.3
91
0.9
96
0.7
07
0.7
39
0.7
76
0.4
24
0.4
24
0.7
45
C0
.446
0.9
96
0.7
14
0.5
90
0.7
68
0.8
02
0.4
54
0.4
47
0.7
55
M2
NC
0.6
27
10
.94
40
.675
0.5
99
0.5
71
0.9
75
0.9
61
0.9
65
0.8
83
C0
.664
10
.94
50
.346
0.7
06
0.6
44
0.6
13
0.9
72
0.9
64
0.9
67
0.8
92
M3
NC
0.9
56
0.9
68
0.9
33
0.9
90
.944
0.9
41
0.8
98
C0
.969
0.9
61
0.9
52
0.9
92
0.9
94
0.9
53
0.9
62
0.9
19
M4
NC
0.5
73
0.9
97
0.8
41
0.7
49
0.5
77
0.4
71
0.9
73
0.7
55
0.9
11
C0
.657
0.9
99
0.8
49
0.5
41
0.8
03
0.6
50
0.5
56
0.9
74
0.7
86
0.9
25
M5
NC
0.7
59
0.8
66
0.9
52
0.7
81
0.7
74
0.9
28
0.9
15
0.9
76
C0
.951
0.8
67
0.9
82
0.9
10
0.9
49
0.9
44
0.9
73
0.9
43
0.9
87
M6
NC
0.7
82
0.9
95
0.9
33
0.8
21
0.7
17
0.9
57
0.9
57
0.8
88
C0
.789
0.9
95
0.9
34
0.6
48
0.8
26
0.7
71
0.9
57
0.9
57
0.8
90
M7
NC
0.3
83
10
.88
20
.531
0.3
55
0.2
89
0.9
89
0.7
85
0.8
58
0.8
19
C0
.584
10
.88
50
.298
0.6
92
0.5
63
0.5
13
0.9
89
0.8
00
.864
0.8
60
M8
NC
0.6
03
1.0
04
0.8
70
0.6
93
0.6
45
0.4
06
0.9
04
0.8
43
0.8
25
0.9
09
C0
.671
1.0
04
0.8
81
0.5
51
0.7
49
0.5
72
0.5
01
0.9
04
0.8
62
0.8
47
0.9
14
M9
NC
0.1
83
10
.80
60
.519
0.5
08
0.6
96
0.6
15
0.8
99
C0
.317
10
.81
40
.104
0.5
98
0.5
92
0.7
21
0.6
45
0.9
10
M1
0N
C0
.516
1.0
01
0.8
69
0.6
71
0.6
53
0.4
08
0.8
37
0.7
98
0.9
32
C0
.594
1.0
01
0.8
76
0.3
86
0.7
25
0.7
08
0.5
01
0.8
59
0.8
18
0.9
43
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 59
Table
4co
nti
nu
ed
Mad
rasa
sM
ajor
funct
ions
Indiv
idual
ized
funct
ions
Det
ecte
dad
jace
nci
es
Sw
ing
sS
win
gs
Sw
ing
sS
win
gs
M,
E,
CR
T
ISW
,IN
W,
ISE
CR
T,
IQ,
M
Ex
teri
or,
E,
Co
urt
IQ,
E,
CR
T
S,
E,
CR
T
Q,
E,
CR
T
Q,
R,
S
LC
,M
,
CR
T
INW
,M
,
CR
T
E,
INW
,
M
M1
1N
C0
.585
0.9
90
0.9
39
0.5
67
0.4
67
0.9
63
0.9
60
.872
C0
.637
0.9
90
0.9
40
0.2
69
0.6
23
0.5
53
0.9
64
0.9
61
0.8
84
M1
2N
C0
.361
0.9
96
0.8
19
0.4
71
0.3
27
0.0
92
0.7
74
0.6
76
0.9
43
C0
.458
0.9
97
0.8
26
0.2
49
0.5
57
0.4
33
0.2
23
0.7
85
0.6
95
0.9
50
Th
ev
alues
sho
wn
un
der
lin
edh
ave
dis
tin
ctB
DF
resu
lts
60 S. Malhis
iwans are distinguished by their permeabilities and by controlling the route to the
madrassa. Its north-western iwan is the most integrated space followed by the court.
The mean integration value for the madrassa is 0.527 without the exterior. In an
unusual manner, the entrance (E1) that used to occupy the lower band of integration
values becomes the fourth most integrated with the exterior included and moves
over to the integrated side with the exterior excluded. The mausoleum’s mihrab and
the stairway that leads to mezzanine rooms are the most segregated spaces at 0.34
and 0.36, respectively.
When the exterior is included, the integration values of several spaces develop.
The exterior appears on the integrated side of the mean integration. The vestibule
becomes the most integrated, followed by the north-western iwan. A look at the
distribution of the integration values reveals that the integrated central zone is
pushed towards and around the north-western edge of the building into the outside.
In contrast to the previous examples, BDF results suggest a weakly differentiated
(M, E, and CRT) at 0.956 with the exterior and 0.969 without. More significant is
the undifferentiated and largely homogenized (exterior, E, CRT) result at a BDF
value of 0.992. Similarly homogenized are (E, INW, M) at 0.898. These BDF results
are remarkable because it is uncommon to find such syntactic similarities between a
madrassa’s diverse functions, and their exterior.
Burgoyne argues that there are certain urban characteristics that Mamluks
considered when they chose the location of their madrassas. Because Haram al
Sharif symbolizes Jerusalem’s sacredness to Islam, Mamluks intended to place their
madrassas at the section nearest to the Haram (Fig. 5). ‘The mausoleum, the most
important building unit… was placed… at the juncture of two urban thorough-
fares… where the stream of passers-by was dense and continuous. [Such an
architectural setting] aims at providing a physical link with the passer-by and… is
an indication of the ardent medieval… aspiration for beneficent divine influence…derived from the blessings invoked by passer-by on the tomb’ (Burgoyne 1987:
468–469). These demands juxtaposed with the orientation challenges to Mecca,
seem to have forced the builders to compromise the functionality of the madrassa.
Madrassa M4, from Aleppo, is the fourth-smallest madrassa. Most unusually, its
qibla-iwan precedes the court and forms its entry space. Two of its iwans are
permeable, and its exterior is on the segregated side of the mean integration. The
mean integration value of M4’s complex is 0.757, which is among the highest in the
sample. In contrast to M3, north-western iwan does not play any major structuring
role. Despite these variances, the syntactic and difference factor results show that
M4 resembles other examples in terms of how its educational and individualized
functions are spatialized.
M5 is another Jerusalem madrassa, which is tightly squeezed within the desired
Mamluk block. It is the second-smallest madrassa, and the most permeable. The
court, which lies on all of the trivial and non-trivial rings, is the most integrated
space, followed by the north-western iwan. The mausoleum and its second entrance
(E2) are on the integrated side of the rank order of integration values both with the
exterior excluded or included. When the exterior is considered, the north-eastern
iwan becomes as integrated as the court, followed by the mausoleum. Most
notable is the exterior being on the side of the mean integration of the sample. In its
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 61
syntactic unconventionality, the distribution of M5’s integration values is similar to
that of M3. M5 has a mean integration value of 0.602 with the exterior considered:
its exterior’s integration value is at 0.680 and the integration values of its two
entrances are 0.625 and 0.809. All of which suggest that these madrassas have
extroverted plans.
M6 is the largest in the sample (Fig. 6). Although most of its functional labelling
is familiar, it introduces some new features in its spatial patterning which include: a
clear division between the sets of students’ cells, new sets of functions that appear in
the deep branching of M6’s justified graph (sub-courts C1-4, ablution spaces A1-4
and stairways SToP1-4), and an abundant number of splits both at the long corridor
and the court. Five of the branches at the court penetrate deep in the system without
deeper rings connecting them.
In M6 each iwan, at the corner of the layout, ‘is devoted to one of the four Sunni
rites of jurisprudence; the south-western-iwan was reserved for the sessions of the
Hanbali school, the north-western for the Hanafi school … the north-eastern for the
Maliki school’ and qibla-iwan for Shafi (Al-Harithy 2001, pp. 74–75). It is beyond
the sub-courts of these iwans that M6 began to expand. Despite these variances, the
court remains the most integrated space, and the study rooms are the most
Fig. 5 Jerusalem madrassas located on the Jerusalem map
62 S. Malhis
segregated. The integration mean of this huge madrassa is the lowest across the
sample. Its difference factor results did not register eccentric values. Although the
literature had always described the unorthodox placement of M6’s mausoleum
‘behind the Qibla wall and its projection outside the main block of the complex …[as] the most symbolically charged gesture,’ its syntactical results and the manner in
which it is syntactically spatialized do not reflect this perceptual heterodoxy (Al-
Harithy 2001, p. 76).
Burji Madrassas
M7 has a justified graph that has some resemblance to M9, M8 and M2 in terms of
how divisions among the various users of the madrassa develop. The divisions occur
in the sequence of entry for the novices and later on for the kuttab and sabil. The
literature shows that Sabil-Kuttab is a charitable Burji common duality; whereas the
sabil on the main floor provides fresh water for passersby, the kuttab on the upper
level teaches children. M7 and M9 are also similar in terms of how their mausoleum
branches from qibla-iwan, without the mausoleum having any alternative entry
approach. Although M2 and M8 are similar to M7 and M9 in how their mausoleums
are linked to the qibla-iwan, the mausoleums of M2 and of M9 are set on a ring that
connects to the court (Fig. 7).
In all of these Burji madrassas, the most integrated space is the court, followed by
the long corridor. The iwans are on the integrated side of the mean integration value
and the mausoleum on the segregated side. Student rooms range on the two sides of
the mean according to their location. The entrance is amongst the most segregated
poles, and the exterior is the first or the second most-segregated space. The
madrassas’ mean integration values are 0.631, 0.644 and 0.684 and decrease when
Fig. 6 Bahri madrassa plan (M6) and its justified graph
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 63
the exterior is considered. The comparative difference factor results for the main
spaces of these madrassas highlight, albeit at various degrees of strength, similar
differentiating tendencies. The BDF results for M, E, CRT for the madrassas, for
example, are (0.383, 0.603, 0.183); for their exterior, E, CRT are (0.298, 0.551,
0.104); and for their IQ, E, CRT are (0.531, 0.693, 0.519). The effect of their
configuration reveals that the court draws the entire configuration together and
structures the relationship between the two segregated poles of the entrance and the
Fig. 7 Burji madrassas justified graphs (M7–M12)
64 S. Malhis
Table
5R
evie
wo
fth
esa
mp
lew
ith
each
fun
ctio
n’s
spac
en
um
ber
of
occ
urr
ence
s,in
teg
rati
on
,an
dd
epth
Sam
ple
Bah
rip
erio
dB
urj
ip
erio
d
Wit
ho
ut
exte
rio
rW
ith
exte
rio
rW
ith
out
exte
rio
rW
ith
exte
rio
rW
ith
ou
tex
teri
or
Wit
hex
teri
or
Fu
nct
ion
al
spac
e
No
.o
f
case
s
Inte
gra
tio
nIn
teg
rati
on
Dep
thN
o.
of
case
s
Inte
gra
tion
Inte
gra
tion
Dep
thN
o.
of
case
s
Inte
gra
tio
nIn
teg
rati
on
Dep
th
Ex
teri
or
12
0.4
84
0.5
49
0.4
18
CR
T1
21
.252
1.2
24
6.9
20
61
.198
1.1
83
7.0
06
1.3
07
1.2
66
6.8
30
IQ1
20
.868
0.8
61
8.1
70
60
.897
0.8
96
7.8
36
0.8
39
0.8
26
8.5
00
INW
12
0.8
65
0.8
57
7.9
20
60
.886
0.8
85
7.5
06
0.8
44
0.8
30
8.3
30
ISW
12
0.8
85
0.8
75
7.9
20
60
.845
0.8
41
8.0
06
0.9
26
0.9
10
7.8
30
INE
12
0.9
58
0.9
45
7.9
20
60
.972
0.9
62
8.0
06
0.9
44
0.9
27
7.8
30
M1
20
.633
0.6
45
9.3
30
60
.630
0.6
61
8.0
06
0.6
36
0.6
28
10
.67
MIQ
12
0.6
12
0.6
03
9.8
00
60
.634
0.6
24
9.3
36
0.5
91
0.5
81
10
.17
E1
20
.513
0.5
63
1.0
00
60
.558
0.6
33
1.0
06
0.4
68
0.4
93
1.0
00
VS
11
0.6
75
0.7
06
2.6
40
50
.652
0.7
72
.40
60
.694
0.6
52
2.8
30
S1
11
0.7
92
0.7
86
9.8
00
50
.748
0.7
44
8.4
06
0.8
29
0.8
20
8.6
70
MM
10
0.4
61
0.4
67
9.8
00
50
.429
0.4
46
10
.05
0.4
93
0.4
89
9.6
00
LC
10
0.9
36
0.9
56
4.3
00
40
.874
0.8
96
3.7
56
0.9
78
0.9
97
4.6
70
ST
oP
11
00
.591
0.6
08
7.0
00
40
.468
0.5
13
7.5
06
0.6
72
0.6
72
6.6
70
ST
oP
29
0.5
35
0.5
56
10
.00
30
.466
0.4
76
11
.33
60
.569
0.5
96
9.3
30
D1
90
.61
0.6
24
2.5
60
50
.628
0.6
53
2.2
00
40
.589
0.5
87
3.0
00
R1
80
.601
0.6
07
10
.57
40
.521
0.5
32
8.2
50
40
.681
0.6
82
8.0
00
A7
0.5
95
0.6
08
5.6
70
40
.595
0.6
59
9.5
00
30
.508
0.5
41
12
.00
B6
0.5
42
0.5
46
5.6
70
10
.541
0.5
45
7.0
00
50
.542
0.5
46
5.4
00
Q1
60
.507
0.5
05
11
.50
20
.568
0.5
62
12
.00
40
.477
0.4
76
11
.25
IR1
60
.592
0.5
91
11
.00
20
.618
0.6
17
12
.00
40
.579
0.5
78
10
.50
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 65
Table
5co
nti
nu
ed
Sam
ple
Bah
rip
erio
dB
urj
ip
erio
d
Wit
ho
ut
exte
rio
rW
ith
exte
rio
rW
ith
out
exte
rio
rW
ith
exte
rio
rW
ith
ou
tex
teri
or
Wit
hex
teri
or
Fu
nct
ion
al
spac
e
No
.o
f
case
s
Inte
gra
tio
nIn
teg
rati
on
Dep
thN
o.
of
case
s
Inte
gra
tion
Inte
gra
tion
Dep
thN
o.
of
case
s
Inte
gra
tio
nIn
teg
rati
on
Dep
th
QD
L4
0.5
68
0.5
64
11
.75
20
.605
0.5
98
11
.50
20
.531
0.5
29
12
.00
SN
WR
40
.665
0.6
57
8.7
50
04
0.6
65
0.6
57
8.7
50
SN
WL
30
.630
0.6
23
8.6
70
03
0.6
30
0.6
23
8.6
70
SIQ
L3
0.6
39
0.6
47
6.3
30
20
.637
0.6
52
5.0
00
10
.644
0.6
38
9.0
00
MD
L3
0.6
91
0.6
82
9.6
70
10
.58
0.5
84
7.0
00
20
.747
0.7
31
11
.00
SIQ
R2
0.7
40
0.7
44
6.5
00
10
.831
0.8
45
4.0
00
10
.650
0.6
44
9.0
00
PD
L2
0.5
72
0.5
75
6.5
00
20
.572
0.5
75
6.5
00
E2
20
.530
0.7
33
1.0
00
20
.53
0.7
33
1.0
00
VS
22
0.5
31
0.6
87
2.0
00
20
.531
0.6
87
2.0
00
M2
10
.598
0.5
92
12
.00
10
.598
0.5
92
12
.00
RN
E1
0.6
92
0.6
89
8.0
00
10
.692
0.6
89
8.0
00
RC
10
.688
0.6
89
7.0
00
10
.688
0.6
89
7.0
00
C1
10
.630
0.6
60
9.0
00
10
.628
0.6
63
9.0
00
A1
-1
0.4
67
0.4
47
11
.00
10
.467
0.4
47
11
.00
66 S. Malhis
various sets of individualized rooms. As Table 4 shows, M9 has the most structured
relationship in the entire sample in terms of its mausoleum, entrance, and court
relationship (BDF values at 0.183 and 0.317 without and with exterior).
M10 is distinguished by its largely permeable functional spaces, and by its mean
integration value, which is the highest in the sample. Its rings around the qibla-iwan,
the mausoleum, the distributing transitional spaces, and the court facilitate a high
degree of choice in moving around the madrassa. M11 is also distinguished by its
ring that links the north-western-iwan, mausoleum, court, and branches into several
rooms. Despite these characteristics, the syntactic results of these madrassas do not
depart from Burji’s sample results. Like all madrassas, the court of M12 is where
multiple branching occurs. Apart from the three adjacent iwans, which are strongly
homogenized, the spatial configuration of M12, the last built Mamluk madrassa, is
strongly differentiated.
Incorporating an Inequality Genotype
The madrassa-by-madrassa review highlighted the individuality of each madrassa.
However, when the spatial and functional properties of the sample were compared,
we saw that madrassas appear to mutate a limited number of functions in different
ways. These functions appear to be variations on a particular conception rather than
profoundly different ways of organizing the madrassa.
The degree to which the sample can demonstrate the idea of a single,
configurational, dominant genotype, is now investigated. Table 5 shows each main
type of functional space, showing the number of times that it occurs, its era, its mean
integration and its mean depth. This shows that although some of the functions
appeared consistently in almost all madrassas, others were less frequent. To form a
deeper understanding, the functions that appeared fewer than seven times were
revisited. In most of those instances, the table shows that these labels are not
exclusive to any particular era. However, sabils are more apparent in the Burji
period; sadlas (SNWR and SNWL) are exclusive to the Burji period; and the second
entrance and the vestibule are exclusive to Jerusalem madrassas. Whereas the sadlas
are decorative static spaces that became popular in the Burji period to expand iwans,
the second set of entrances to Bahri Jerusalem is a dynamic addition that influences
the functionality and spatiality of the madrassa.
The table also reflects that there are strong across-the-board variations in the
manner in which these functions are spatialized. Courts occur in the sample with a
mean integration value of 1.252 (1.224 with exterior) and a mean depth of 6.92;
qibla-iwans occur with a mean integration value of 0.868 (0.861 with exterior) and a
mean depth of 8.17; the other three educational iwans have mean integration values
ranging between 0.865 and 0.958 without exterior (0.857–0.945 with exterior) and a
mean depth of 7.92; mausoleums occur with a mean integration value of 0.633
(0.645 with exterior) and a mean depth of 9.33. Entrances are both the shallowest
and amongst the most segregated, except for M3 and M5; in contrast, courts are both
located at an intermediate depth level and are the most integrated space with and
without exterior except for M3 and M5 where they become the second. These
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 67
Table
6A
spat
ial
gro
upin
go
fth
ep
rop
ose
dg
eno
typ
es
The
‘Jer
usa
lem
’gen
oty
pe
MM
ean
inte
gra
tion
Most
inte
gra
ted
spac
eM
ost
segre
gat
edsp
aces
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
M3
0.5
27
0.6
02
INW
0.8
6L
C/V
S1
0.9
5M
M,
ST
oP
2,
ST
oP
3,E
2S
toP
2,M
M,S
IQL
,S
top3
M5
0.6
08
0.6
57
CR
T1.2
4IN
E/C
RT
1.2
2S
ToP
1,R
1,E
1,V
s0S
ToP
1,
R1,
ST
oP
2,
RN
E
Aver
age
0.5
68
0.6
30
The
‘Court
’gen
oty
pe
MM
ean
inte
gra
tion
Most
inte
gra
ted
spac
eM
ost
segre
gat
edsp
aces
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
Wit
hout
exte
rior
Wit
hex
teri
or
M1
0.7
76
0.7
71
CR
T1.5
4C
RT
1.5
1M
M,
M,
ST
oP
1,
MD
LM
M,M
,ST
oP
1,E
xte
rior
M2
0.5
77
0.5
70
CR
T1.0
5C
RT
1.0
3Q
4,E
,Q3,Q
1E
xte
rior,
Q1,
E,
Q4
M4
0.7
57
0.7
49
CR
T1.4
9C
RT
1.4
5M
M,
Q2,Q
1,
R1
MM
,Exte
rior,
Q1-2
,R
1
M6
0.4
26
0.4
26
CR
T1.0
1C
RT
1.0
1S
x,
ST
oP
x,
Cx,
Ax
Sx
Rx,
ST
oP
x,
Exte
rior
M7
0.6
31
0.5
96
CR
T1.1
6C
RT
1.1
4Q
2,E
,R2,
Sx
Exte
rior,
Q2,S
x,R
2
M8
0.6
44
0.6
39
CR
T1.1
2C
RT
1.0
8Q
x,
A,
B,
EQ
x,
Exte
rior,
A,
B
M9
0.6
84
0.6
66
CR
T1.3
1C
RT
1.2
5M
M,
E,
ST
oP
1,
MM
M,E
xte
rior,
E,
ST
oP
1
M10
0.8
29
0.8
15
CR
T1.4
6C
RT
1.4
2E
,B
,S
x,
MM
Exte
rior,
B,
Sx,
E
M11
0.7
25
0.7
11
CR
T1.3
2C
RT
1.2
9R
x,
E,
D,
IRE
xte
rior,
Rx,
E,
MIQ
M12
0.7
59
0.7
44
CR
T1.4
7C
RT
1.4
2Q
x,
E,
MM
,D
,BQ
x,
Exte
rior,
MM
,B
Aver
age
0.6
81
0.6
69
Inte
gra
tion
aver
age
Sam
ple
0.6
62
0.6
62
Bah
riper
iod
0.6
12
0.6
29
Burj
iper
iod
0.7
12
0.6
95
68 S. Malhis
variations are adequate to give a difference factor of 0.795 for the means of the
court, mausoleum, and entrance, which are very strong, resulting in a difference
factor of 0.908 for the means of the court mausoleum and the qibla iwan, which is
strong in the sample. In addition, there is a difference factor of 0.994 for the means
of the court, the qibla iwan and north-western iwan, which is very weak.
With respect to the transitional spaces, the long corridor is a common feature that
is relatively shallow and strongly integrated. It occurs with a mean integration value
of 0.936 (0.956 with exterior) and a mean depth of 4.3. The stairways that lead
either to the kuttab or to the mezzanine are usually segregated at a mean integration
value of 0.591 (0.608 with exterior) and have a mean depth of 7; SToP2 is much
deeper at a mean depth of 10 and a mean integration value of 0.535 (0.556 with
exterior). The different sets of individualized functions (students, shiq, novices) are
common and rank among the least integrated spaces. When the base difference
factor was examined, it became clear that these spaces are not differentiated among
themselves but are held apart.
If spaces are ‘shallower when the exterior participates in the configuration, then
they can be considered extroverted, but if they are more integrated without the
exterior, this suggests that they are more closed and inward looking’ (Orhun et al.
1995: 33–34). The sample shows that those spaces that belong to the educational
zone have a mean integration that is slightly more integrated without the exterior.
However, the mausoleum, sabil, novices’ rooms, corridor, entrances and vestibules
are less integrated. These general tendencies are indicative of a delicate dominant
spatial culture that articulates itself through systematic variations in spatial
investment across the range of madrassa functions. Although it maintains several
of its themes across the sample, some of these themes are particularly lost in M3 and
M5.
The issue we need to investigate now relates both to the degree of difference of
the spatial organization between Jerusalem madrassas and the rest of the sample,
and the degree of similarity between the madrassas of the one hypothesized
genotype. Table 6 divides the sample into two types. The mean integration of the
Jerusalem sample is 0.568 without exterior and 0.630 with. Jerusalem madrassas are
more integrated with the exterior and more segregated without it, leading to the
likelihood that these madrassas are more extroverted. The mean integration of the
ten-madrassa-sample is 0.681 without exterior and 0.669 with. While the court is the
most integrated space with and without the exterior for the ten madrassas, it
switches its rank in the Jerusalem sample to become the second with the exterior
included. Its position is occupied by the vestibule/long corridor in M3 and by the
north-eastern-iwan in M5. Whereas the exterior has always been amongst the most
segregated, it became in Jerusalem madrassas on the integrated side. In contrast to
the segregated entrances of the whole sample, Jerusalem madrassas’ additional
entrances became on the integrated side of the mean. These deviations of the
Jerusalem sample are also echoed by peculiar BDF results; always occupying an
extreme. A look at the values of M, E, CRT; Exterior, E, CRT; E, INW, M or CRT,
IQ, M confirms this atypical trend (Table 4). Although the Aleppo madrassa is
regional, its syntactic results are not as exclusive to suggest genotypical shifts.
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 69
The question now: what is the degree of strength by which the ten madrassas
demonstrate the idea of a single configurational dominant genotype? Table 3 shows
that the integration values of the court have the highest integration values in all ten
cases; the long corridor is the second most-integrated space in six out of twelve
cases, the north-eastern iwan is the second most-integrated space in two cases; the
north-western and qibla-iwans have one case each; three of the four iwans always
occupy the second, third, and fourth ranks and their integration values are very
analogous to one another, homogenizing them and making them spatially
interchangeable. The position of the last of the fourth iwans differs in response to
its connectivity to other functions. Although the distribution does not show an
unequivocal pattern, the rank order makes it clear that iwans occupy a middle tier.
Also notable is the similarity of the functions that occupy the end tier of ranks and
the small range of variation in their integration values. Although the entrance, for
example, is the most segregated, occupying first place in one out of ten cases,
second in five cases, and third to fifth in four cases, its location is interchangeable
with the almost similarly segregated individualized quarters, mausoleums-mihrab,
or ablutions and sabils, where these exist.
These vigorous tendencies through the sample however, are solid indications of
an underlying spatial culture asserting itself through the spatial form of the
madrassas. However, the various inversions notable here assert that there are several
phenotypical expressions in this genotype. The number of spaces in these madrassas
create a vast number of possible combinations of numerical sequences, to a point
where finding a recurrent visual pattern seems less possible unless the relationship
between spatial uses is so robust that it overcomes the changes at the level of
building patterns. The variations in their consequent permeabilities have thus
affected both their ranks and reduced the similarities in their clustered differen-
tiations, particularly when entrances and mausoleums are considered. According to
Hillier and Leaman, no builders or designers working with a tradition truly work
with a clean slate of existing patterns: they always modify (Hillier and Leaman
1974). When such conditions are confronted, genotype could be looked at, not as ‘a
given rank order of labelled spaces, but a statistically stable pattern of variation of
those’ (Bafna 2001: 9). One can suggest that most madrassas belong to the spatial
grouping from which the hypothesized ‘court’ genotype is theoretically derived
(Ostwald 2011).
Although M1 and M6 owned some of the characteristics that categorized them
within the court-genotype, these two madrassas remained phenotypically individ-
ualized. While M1 showed that each of its educational and memorial spaces is
assigned a distinguished spatial identity shaped through separation and registered
several BDF swings, M6 introduced new spatial complexity. Whether these two
madrassas should be isolated as non-genotypes, or had their seeds established in the
preceding eras or continued in later ones, is not clear and requires separate research.
70 S. Malhis
Conclusions
The initial reading of the spatial qualities of Mamluk madrassas highlighted the
irregularities in the madrassas’ forms and questioned their impact on the
homogeneity of the actual syntax of space. The madrassa-by-madrassa review has
suggested a dominant trend based on the existence of a court with several properties.
Analyses show that there are two clear spatial genotypes. One dominant variant
centres around an integrated court and segregated exterior. In this ‘court-genotype’
and its phenotypical variations, the integrated central zone is edged by segregation
that spreads around individualized spaces, through the entrance and towards the
outer-environment, separating and distancing by such the educational core from the
busy exterior. The different filters and corridors come to regulate the dynamics of
the madrassa and to separate its highly integrated, weakly differentiated educational
inner parts from the outer busy environment.
The other variant, which is exclusive to Jerusalem, although keeping the court
within the integrated core, brings some new themes into play. While the exterior has
always been amongst the most segregated, it becomes on the integrated side of the
mean integration value. The court of these tight-permeable madrassas switches its
rank to second with the iwans and transitional spaces taking its position. The
integrated core now spikes its focus towards the entrances, and relates the core and
the context of the mausoleum to the exterior. In contrast to the earlier genotype, the
madrassas are more centrifugal and of extroverted plans. The madrassa-mausoleum
in this case tries to expand its circle of presence, reach the outer environment and
maximize the opportunities of encounter. The visitors to the larger educational,
holy, Jerusalem who cross the sought-after Mamluk block are now more
homogeneous and thus are more welcome in the context of the madrassa than
they were in the other localities.
While this underlying spatial ‘Jerusalem genotype’’ is associated with the locality
of Jerusalem, the second ‘‘court genotype’’ does not seem to be associated with the
size, era, or locality of the madrassa as noticed by the stability of the integration
values across the Bahri and Burji sample. Although the mean integration value
slightly increased in the Burji period, it is not significant to suggest any genotypical
turns. Analysis shows that the Bahri period is the period that witnessed the
emergence of the spatial organizations of genotypes, and suggests that the
madrassas over the Burji period have become more subtly composed.
While space syntax presents a quantitative picture that echoes the madrassas’
geometric rules, its ability to capture the perceptual capabilities of the layouts
remains arguable. While it mathematically discerned the symbolically charged
Mamluk gesture that heightened M1’s mausoleum by separation, it failed to detect
the unorthodox placement of the M6 mausoleum behind the Qibla wall. A result that
directs attention to space-syntax limitation and its plausibility in detecting combined
syntactical-geometric and perceptual impacts.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Petra University for funding this research. Grant
Number: (01/05/2013).
The Spatial Logic of Mamluk Madrassas: Readings in the… 71
References
Abouseif, Doris. B. 1992. Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. Netherlands: Brill.
Al-Harithy, Howayda. 2001. The Concept of Space in Mamluk Architecture. Muqarnas 18: 73–93.
Alsayyad, Naser. 2011. Cairo: Histories of a City. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Bafna, Sonit. 2001. Geometrical Institutions of Genotype. Proceedings, 3rd International Space-syntax
Symposium in Atlanta, Vol. 1, 20.1–20.15.
Burgoyne, Michael. 1987. Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architectural Study. Northampton: Interlink
Publishing.
Eilouti, Buthayna and Amer Al-Jokhadar. 2007. A Generative System for Mamluk Madrasa Form-
making. Nexus Network Journal 9 (1): 7–29.
Grabar, Oleg. 1984. Reflections on Mamluk Art. Muqarnas 2: 1–12.
Hillier, Bill and Adrian Leaman. 1974. How is Design Possible? Journal of Architectural Research 3 (1):
4–11.
Hillier, Bill, Julienne Hanson, and Heather Graham. 1987. Ideas Are in Things: An Application of the
Space-syntax Method to Discovering House Genotypes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 14: 363–385.
Mahamid, Hatim. 2011. Curricula and Educational Process in Mamluk Madrasas. Education Research
Journal 1 (7): 141–151.
Malhis, Shatha. 2016. Narratives in Mamluk Architecture: Spatial and Perceptual Analyses of the
Madrassas and Their Mausoleums. Frontiers of Architectural Research 5 (1): 74–90.
Newhall, Amy. W. 1987. The Patronage of the Mamluk Sultan Qa’it Bay, 872–901/1468–1496, Published
Ph.D. thesis. Harvard: Harvard University.
Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities. 1992. Principles of Architectural Design and Urban
Planning During Different Islamic Eras. Cairo: Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities.
Orhun, Deniz, Bill Hillier, and Julienne Hanson. 1995. Spatial Types in Traditional Turkish Houses.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22: 475–498.
Ostwald, Michael. J. 2011. A Justified Plan Graph Analysis of the Early Houses (1975–1982) of Glen
Murcutt. Nexus Network Journal 13 (3): 737–762.
Parker, Robin. 1985. Islamic Monuments in Cairo. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
Pinelo, Joao and Alasdair Turner. 2010. Depthmap 10 (Computer Program). London: UCL.
Rabbat, Nasser. 2010. Mamluk History Through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in
Medieval Egypt and Syria. London: I.B. Tauris.
Varoudis, Tasos. 2014. Depthmap X (Computer Program). London: UCL.
Shatha Malhis is an Assistant Professor of Architecture and Interior Design at the Petra University
whose research involves an exploration of the spatial and phenomenological perception of forms. She has
a Ph.D. in Architecture from Oxford Brookes University, England. She was appointed as the Chairwoman
of the Interior Design Department for several years and also served as a Deputy-Dean. Malhis has
published work on the semiotic and syntactic structures of forms in journals, conferences and books such
as Architectural Science Review, Urban Design International, IJAR, Frontiers of Architectural Research
and Iaps series books. She co-chaired the fifth Annual Conference of the Centre for the Study of
Architecture and the conference of the Digital Media and its Applications in Cultural Heritage, and co-
edited Responsibilities and Opportunities in Architectural Conservation. Malhis teaches specialized
option studios, modern history, theory and criticism courses. In addition to her academic career, Malhis
co-founded a consulting firm in Toronto and works as an architect and interior designer.
72 S. Malhis